Plan Approved to Give Voters Control Over Term Limits

A legislative committee approved a plan Thursday to give local voters the choice of repealing or keeping term limits on the senators and Assembly members they send to the Legislature.

The action by the Assembly Elections Committee was the latest--and perhaps one of the strangest--twist in an uphill struggle by some lawmakers to rewrite portions of Proposition 140, the 1990 initiative overwhelmingly approved by voters to create term limits.

None of those reform measures has succeeded. Opinion polls consistently show that Californians oppose tampering with term limits.

Without debate, the committee swiftly approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would enable voters in individual Assembly and Senate districts to choose whether to retain or repeal term limits in legislative elections.

In addition, the proposal by Assemblyman Lou Papan (D-Millbrae) would restore pensions to state lawmakers, a perk also abolished by Proposition 140.

The plan’s prospects are uncertain, but if it is approved by the Legislature it would go before voters on the March 2000 ballot.

The plan could create a political crazy quilt, with term lengths varying from district to district and conceivably changing the balance of power in favor of unrestricted lawmakers whose longevity and fund-raising prowess would give them a political advantage over shorter-term colleagues.

But during the brief committee hearing, such issues were not discussed.

Sherry Bebitch Jeffee, a political science instructor at Claremont Graduate University, called the plan “crazy and cynical.”

“The Legislature is ducking the issue,” she said. “They’re showing a lack of political courage by passing the buck and letting the voters decide. . . . You can’t pick and choose, district by district. That doesn’t make any sense.”

But Papan, who retired from the Assembly in 1986 and returned in 1996, told the committee he believes a “substantial number” of Californians want their legislators to be free of restricted terms.

“They want representation that comes with experience to handle issues that come before legislators,” he said.

Lew Uhler, president of the National Tax Limitation Committee, which supported Proposition 140, said Thursday that he believes Californians remain “strongly supportive” of term limits. If the Papan plan went on the ballot, he said, “I’m skeptical there will be any overwhelming public support for it.”

He called the lawmakers retirement provision “a backdoor effort” to restore legislative pensions. “I don’t think the people are going to buy it,” he said.

Although they privately abhor term limits, many lawmakers have said privately that voting to scrap or amend the restrictions would anger voters and invite retaliation at election time.

A Los Angeles Times poll released last week found that term limits are still highly popular. Nearly seven of 10 Californians sampled believe term limits are a good thing, a sentiment that crossed ideology and party lines.

The proposal was approved by the committee on a 4-2 vote, with Democrats voting in favor and Republicans opposed.

Proposition 140, which proponents said would rid the Capitol of “career politicians” and replace them with “citizen legislators,” imposed limits on the number and length of terms for statewide officers and legislators.

Members of the Assembly are restricted to three two-year terms, while senators are limited to two four-year terms.

Papan said his plan represented the “epitome of democracy” because it would allow voters on a district-by-district basis to choose term limits.

A chief criticism of term limits is that legislators are so busy learning how to make laws they never develop expertise before they are gone. As a result, critics say, the work product has become sloppy and superficial.

Under Papan’s plan, current term limitations would remain unchanged. But at general elections beginning next year, voters would decide whether to keep or eliminate the restrictions.

If they voted to repeal term limits, the issue would be put to a vote again every eight years for state senators and every six years for assembly members.

Last session, Papan carried a bill that would have expanded Assembly limits to three four-year terms and Senate terms to two six-year terms. The bill failed in the Assembly.

He is carrying a similar measure this session, but it is stalled on the Assembly floor. He said his plan to let voters keep or repeal term limits is a companion proposal that would give voters another option.

The second bill would also allow new and incumbent legislators to get into a state pension system. Proposition 140 cut off retirement benefits to lawmakers elected after 1990 and restricted them to Social Security.

The earlier legislative retirement system was one of the most generous in the country. The Papan proposal would restrict legislators to a retirement program that serves most state employees.

Bill George, an assistant to Papan, said Papan would receive no benefit from the proposed new retirement plan because he was a vested member in the legislative retirement plan that voters abolished in 1990. Benefits of vested members were not affected by the ballot proposition.